It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Attorney General Tells Justice Department Not to Defend Trump's Immigration Ban

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Greven

Yes.

Amazing.

I wonder what the right says about it:

Their conference chairman, a then-obscure Indiana conservative named Mike Pence, underscored the point with a clip from Patton, showing the general rallying his troops for war against their Nazi enemy: “We’re going to kick the hell out of him all the time! We’re going to go through him like crap through a goose!”
...
“A lot of us woke up every morning thinking about how to kick Obama, who could say the harshest thing about Obama on the air,” says longtime Republican lobbyist and operative Ed Rogers, who wrote in House Speaker Paul Ryan on his ballot for president. “We ended up where any hint of nuance or maturity just proved you were incapable of being the bull in the china shop that our voters wanted.”
...
“We’re not here to cut deals and get crumbs and stay in the minority for another 40 years,” Cantor declared. “We’re going to fight these guys.”
...
In early January 2009, when the House GOP leadership held a retreat at an Annapolis Inn, the team’s new campaign chairman, Pete Sessions, opened his presentation with a philosophical question: “If the Purpose of the Majority Is to Govern…What Is the Purpose of the Minority?”

His answer was on his next slide: “The Purpose of the Minority is to Become the Majority.”
...
“Most importantly, Republicans need to stick together as a team.”
...
The late Ohio s George Voinovich told me in 2012 that there wasn’t much tactical nuance in the Republican cloakroom on Obama-related matters: “If he was for it, we had to be against it.”

This is from their very mouths and actions.

They didn't care about America. They didn't care about its people. They certainly don't give a # about you and me.

Their entire, singular purpose, was to regain power - through division and opposition. It didn't matter what Democrats or President Obama wanted, they had to oppose it; this tactic soon became 'or else':

The more Republicans trashed Obama, the harder it became for them to engage in even basic gestures of civility without alienating their base. Not one congressional Republican accepted Obama’s post-election invitation to a White House screening of “Lincoln.” Boehner has said publicly that he stopped playing golf with the president because his office phone lines kept lighting up with angry callers. Tom Cole, who is part Native American, recalls that when he posed with Obama at a ceremony for a bill involving tribal authorities, the president jokingly assured him that he wouldn’t try to damage him politically by making the photo public.

“A lot of our folks got whipped into a frenzy,” Cole says. “Anything short of absolute victory just proved that everyone in Washington was corrupt, and establishment Republicans were just as bad as Obama. It just got worse over time.”


It's frankly astonishing that some cannot see what has happened, that they instead cast blame upon those who have not committed the act, and that they have embraced propaganda so fully.




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Indeed. Just not in the way you think.

I suspect it would be pointless to show you evidence for a completely different view or to point out that Trump is largely not 'those' republicans, but rather a third-party anti-establishment insurgent, whom the left, some on the right, and the MSM have painted as Hitler.

There's political opposition and then there's simply being unhinged.

I'm clear who is who. Are you?

edit on 30-1-2017 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

Are you so clear?

Do go on. Show me evidence of such things you claim. You claim the left is trying to start a civil war - go on then, put up.

E: In case anyone is unclear, that video is of former A.G. Sally Yates answering Sen. Sessions in the affirmative that she would have the courage to stand up to a President if she felt his acts were wrong (law/constitution).

You know, that thing you were saying 'the left' is trying to start a civil war about. The thing President Trump's nominee wanted as an answer. Maybe this is wasted effort, but perhaps one person might think about it.
edit on 23Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:51:04 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago1 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Could there be any legal consequences for her for refusing a lawful order to protect the United States (yes, in a time of war)?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

Beyond getting fired?
Good question. Was it a crime? It was her opinion that the EO is unconstitutional.


edit on 1/30/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Sure someone could argue it was sedition.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tempter

Beyond getting fired?
Good question. Was it a crime? It was her opinion that the EO is unconstitutional.



All I can say is let's hope we don't hear about any Russia-hacked emails to/from her discussing this as a political move. THAT could be treasonous sabotage.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:07 AM
link   
AG: Yes sir, Pres Trump, sir!
< Goes to court and purposely fails to defend the EO >
AG: I tried my best, what's next Sir?
< repeat until fired >

But I guess the narcissistic, virtue signaling was too tempting.

No wonder Trump already filed for the 2020 elections.

Maybe she couldn't fake a loss convincingly.
edit on 31-1-2017 by Zakaris because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2017 by Zakaris because: forgot the space with < >



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Now that I think about it, it's amazing that she blatantly defied her boss's order the way she did. Also, why didn't Loretta Lynch stay on until Jeff Sessions is confirmed as A.G.?



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Now that I think about it, it's amazing that she blatantly defied her boss's order the way she did. Also, why didn't Loretta Lynch stay on until Jeff Sessions is confirmed as A.G.?


Probably because the Dems knew lynch would be fired straight away and they needed someone in place whilst they did everything to delay Trumps pick.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
I love it. If you cannot follow the law you should not be in law. It is not her job to interpret anything but to enforce the laws of the US.


The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration. It is time to get serious about protecting our country.

Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country. Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons.

"I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected," said Dana Boente, Acting Attorney General.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

It is indeed curious why Yates took this action.
There are a few possibilities.

1. She intended it to be an "internal" memo and did not intend for the president to know about it. She believed, in the true delusions becoming obvious about the left, that everyone would agree with her and the rest of the DOJ would back her, keeping it secret.

2. She knew she would be fired eventually, and decided to continue the political agenda of attempting to drive public opinion against Trump by making the public think that the entire DOJ was against him.

3. She was asked to do this by Obama or someone else (see 2 above), but with the promise that Sessions would not be confirmed for a long time, if ever, and she would be keeping her job longer.

4. She is truly an idiot who does not understand the law or the constitution.

or... something else equally stupid.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
It's, uh, pretty simple.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Rudy Giluliani:




“When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban,’” Giuliani said in a Fox News interview. “He called me up and said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’”

Giuliani said he did indeed form a commission, with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) and other lawyers.

“What we did was we focused on ― instead of religion ― danger,” Giuliani added. “The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis ― perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”


So, the intent was to ban Muslims, thereby violating the First Amendment. Given the interview, yeah, there is substantial cause to believe that was the intent.

Then they focused on 'dangerous countries' which makes no damn sense at all, given this:



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Bombshell --- The Acting U.S. Attorney General had said she will order the Justice Department *NOT* to defend the Executive Order about temporary visa bans from 7 nations.

Sally Yates is the temporary acting Attorney General and is a Democrat appointed by outgoing Obama until a new AG is confirmed.



From conversations today, average Americans still don't understand this..or much else it seems. They think that Donald Trump hired an AG, and then broke the law by firing the AG in less than 2 weeks.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: xuenchen
Bombshell --- The Acting U.S. Attorney General had said she will order the Justice Department *NOT* to defend the Executive Order about temporary visa bans from 7 nations.

Sally Yates is the temporary acting Attorney General and is a Democrat appointed by outgoing Obama until a new AG is confirmed.



From conversations today, average Americans still don't understand this..or much else it seems. They think that Donald Trump hired an AG, and then broke the law by firing the AG in less than 2 weeks.


Too much MSM "education".




posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: xuenchen
Bombshell --- The Acting U.S. Attorney General had said she will order the Justice Department *NOT* to defend the Executive Order about temporary visa bans from 7 nations.

Sally Yates is the temporary acting Attorney General and is a Democrat appointed by outgoing Obama until a new AG is confirmed.



From conversations today, average Americans still don't understand this..or much else it seems. They think that Donald Trump hired an AG, and then broke the law by firing the AG in less than 2 weeks.


Too much MSM "education".



You just know that some of the President's 2:00am mental planning is thinking of ways to pay back ABC/CBS/NBC and especially CNN, for their negative-oriented coverage of everything he does.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Yes.

Trump's intent and what he can get away with are not the same.

He did what he could get away with.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
It's, uh, pretty simple.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Rudy Giluliani:




“When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban,’” Giuliani said in a Fox News interview. “He called me up and said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’”

Giuliani said he did indeed form a commission, with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) and other lawyers.

“What we did was we focused on ― instead of religion ― danger,” Giuliani added. “The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis ― perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”


So, the intent was to ban Muslims, thereby violating the First Amendment. Given the interview, yeah, there is substantial cause to believe that was the intent.

Then they focused on 'dangerous countries' which makes no damn sense at all, given this:




What does your little circles prove?

17 years ago, maybe that was true.

I think the places have changed since then, no?




new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join